Davis Complaint and Answer - virginiadefamationlawyer.com

VIRGINIA:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF HANOVER

SEAN M. DAVIS

Plaintiff,

v.

LANDMARK MEDIA ENTER., LLC d/b/a STYLE WEEKLY -and-PETER GALUSZKA

Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

------------------------)

COMPLAINT

Case No. {'I14tJt2/jI/,2-t}O

RECEIVED andlor FILED

APR 01 2016 CLERK'S OFFICE

HANOVER CIRCUIT COURT

Plaintiff, Sean M. Davis, by counsel, files the following Complaint against

defendant, Landmark Media Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Style Weekly and Peter Galuszka,

jointly and severally.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages in an amount not

less than $1,000,000.00, plus prejudgment interest from December 8, 2015, arising out of

defendants' defamation per se and insulting words.

As and for his Complaint, Plaintiff states the following facts:

Parties

1. Plaintiff, Sean M. Davis ("Davis"), is a Citizen of Virginia. Mr. Davis is a

Republican member of the Board of Supervisors of Hanover County. He was initially

elected as the Henry District Supervisor in November 2011. He served as the Board's

Chairman in 2014 and as Vice-Chair in 2013. In 2015, Mr. Davis was re-elected to the

Board of Supervisors in a General Election in which he won 95.50% of the vote. Mr.

Davis serves and has served on numerous boards and committees, including the Board's

Community Development, Finance, Legislative, Rules; 'and Safety and Security

Committees. Mr. Davis represents Hanover County on the James River Advisory

Council, and formerly represented the County on the Richmond Area Metropolitan

Planning Organization Board and the Richmond Regional Plarming District Commission

and on "Hanover's Promise". He also sits in the Education Steering Committee for the

Virginia Association of Counties. A graduate of Campbell University, Mr. Davis is a

veteran of the United States Marine Corps and was the founder of Commonwealth

Training Partners, a consulting and training company providing solutions to challenges

facing small business. He is active in many organizations, including the Hanover

Historical Society, the' Historic Polegreen Church Foundation, the Hanover Tavern

Foundation, the Studley Ruritan Club, the Hanover Association of Businesses/Chamber

of Commerce and Hanover ARC. He is also a Board Member of American Legion Post

175 in Mechanicsville and a former Board member of the Patrick Henry YMCA. Mr.

Davis is Director of Operations for the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association. He and

his wife Lisa have three children. Julianne, Hannah and Justin attend Hanover's

exceptional public schools and are involved in many activities. The Davis family enjoys

time spent with the Hanover High School Show Choir, Lee Davis NJROTC, and

Hanover's many historic sites. Until he was defamed by the defendants in December

2015, Mr. Davis enjoyed an untarnished reputation. Mr. Davis' reputation is integral to

the performance of his duties as a member of the Hanover County Board of Supervsors

and to his business and profession.

2

, , ~A . . ,

. 2. Defendant, Landmark Media Enterprises, LLC ("LME"), is a Virginia

limited liability company. Landmark owns, publishes and distributes a newspaper called,

Style Weekly. Style Weekly is an alternative weekly newspaper published in Richm\}nd,

Virginia, and on the internet at www.styleweekly.com ..

3. Defendant, Peter Galuszka ("Galuszka"), is employed by LME. Galuszka

is a writer for Style Weekly. Galuszka wrote the false and defamatory article at issue in

this action.

4. At all times relevant to this action, Galuszka was acting within the scope

of his employment. LME is Hable for Galuszka's defamation under the doctrine of

respondeat superior.

Jurisdiction and Venue

5: The Circuit Court for the County of Hanover has jurisdiction of this matter

pursuant to § 17.1"513 of the Virginia Code (1950), as amended.

6. This cause of action arose in the County of Hanover, where the

Defendants published multiple defamatory statements (detailed below) that caused harm

. to Mr. Davis. Venue is proper in the Circuit Court for Hanover County.

Statement of the Facts

7. On December , 2016, ME published an article in Style Weekly entitled,

ucational Environment in Hanover?"

8. The Style Weekly article states, directly and/or indirectly, implies, infers

and insinuates that Mr. Davis abused his position as a Hanover County Supervisor to

have teachers suspended and fired and to have books bauned from Hanover County

public schools. The Style Weekly article contains the following false statements:

3

Also banned are the novel "The Color Purple" and the films "In Cold Blood" and "Capote" because they are rated R, students say.

That's the learning environment as described by some students, former teachers and parents, who say that teachers are especially intimidated by pressure brought by $ean Davis, a member of the Board of Supervisors who represents the Henry District.

They say that Davis has personally intervened to have teachers suspended or face other disciplinary actions if they present ideas or images that Davis considers too liberal.

They also say that as many as five teachers have left the school because of the controversies, which have included teachers having official "monitors" placed in classrooms to oversee performance, interrogating students about what their teachers say in class and having teachers mysteriously leave for weeks at a time.

The atmosphere has become so poisonous that a parent, who asked not to be identified, wrote a letter to Attorney General Mark Herring on Sept. 29, asking for state police "to investigate the conduct of Board of Supervisor Sean Davis and my understanding of a pattern of intimidation of teachers and staff' at the school system.

The issues are likely to be the subject of public debate Dec. 8, during a meeting of the Hanover School Board. There, a recently formed student group called Hanover Students for Freedom of Information and Learning, or HSFOIL, plans to push for changes in school rules to protect teachers against unfair punishment for making sure a variety of views are considered in class.

Provost says she was motivated to take action when Goodrich-Stuart, who also was the high-school newspaper adviser, drew criticism from Davis for some of the art students put up on a wall. According to Provost, one day students went into the room and found all of the material removed. "Nothing on the wall was at all pornographic," she says - "just innocuous posters, artworks, articles."

At one point, Provost says she went to class to find that Goodrich-Stuart wasn't there. A substitute teacher told her that he would be gone "for at least four days." When Goodrich-Stuart returned, he was "monitored" by another teacher who sat in class.

4

Cathie Lee, the parent of a Hanover High School student, says she's deeply wonied that school officials won't confront Davis, a fonner Marine who works at the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association, a Richmond advocacy group.

The student group says it's going to ask the School Board to toughen its policies to protect teachers from unfair outside political influence.

"My concern is that the School Board is not doing anything to protect their children," Lee says. "They have to be careful about what essays they are writing."

9. LME published the statements in the Style Weekly article with actual

malice - that is, with knowledge that the statements were false or with reckless disregard

of whether the statements were false or not. Mr. Davis had absolutely nothing to do with

the suspension or firing of any teacher or the banning of any book. Galuszka

intentionally chose to target Mr. Davis and to quote two select students (both of whom

are part of a political action committee) and one parent. None of Galuszka's alleged

sources had any first-hand knowledge of the facts. Galsuzka chose to quote sources that

obviously bore ill-will towards Davis. Galuszka's alleged sources obviously sought to

avenge the suspension or dismissal of their beloved former teachers, especially the

"popular English teacher", Goodrich-Stuart. Galuszka failed to question the motive of

his sources. Certain of the statements quoted by Galuszka, including the description of

the items on the wall in Goodrich-Stuart's former classroom and who called for the

material to be removed, were obviously false and should .have prompted further

investigation. In spite of obvious reason to doubt the veracity of his sources, Galsuzka

blindly accepted their false representations about Mr. Davis. Galsuzka ignored

Supervisors, School Board Members, teachers, students, and parents who would have

flatly contradicted the negative statements and accusations levelled by the persons quoted

5

in the Style Weekly atiicle. Galuszka presented a predetennined and intentionally J ignorant account that was calculated to prejudice Mr. Davis in his chosen profession.

When Galuszka and LME chose to assist the student political group by publicizing their

dispute, Galuszka and LME became subject to the same duty of due care to ascertain the

accuracy of their charges that every citizen must assume when issuing statements, the

substance of which makes substantial danger to reputation apparent.

10. The Style Weekly article was immediately understood to state, imply, infer

or insinuate that Davis is corrupt and that he abuses his power and position as a

Supervisor in Hanover County. A comment on the article, posted the same day the article

was published, stated as follows:

56 11 f,% PHYLLIS THEROUX 'z> 12108J2015 AT 2:56 PM

ll~f~ LIKES DISLIKes

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Even in Hanover Country. Thank God for our still free pressl Specificelly, thank God for Style Weekly and Its ace reporter. Peter Gazuska.

Other posts on LME's website included:

11:. NUMINA LEHMAN-RIOS II. 12106/2015 AT 4:16 PM I:l 39 6 LIKES DISLIKES

This guy prob thinks hes protecting our chlldren- you know- by being a bully to teachers and through thinly veiled censorship that would hide all but his versions of history his versions of art his virsion of literature- Hanover you can keep him.

&-:ril{f~

T. WILLIAMSON 1210812015 AT 8:20 PM

49 LIKES

4 DISLIKES

Hopefully the Students of Hanover County are running to the local public libraries to read the books and watch the movies Mr. Davis doesn't want them to read or watch.

~ PSYCREV :m 12108/2015 AT 0:23 PM I:l 59 4 LIKES DISLIKES

Small minds are threatened by Ideas that are different from their own. Our founding fathers would be shut down by Sean Davis.

6

39 3 ® ZOMBRO Eik~~\ 1210812015 AT 8:45 PM Ii LIKES OISLlKES

Any correlation between. the teachers he has "attacked" and his daughters schedule?

56 3 LIKES DISLIKES

Education needs to be used to train our young people to think, not to tell them what they should think. If only safe material Is taught than we end up with lemmings that believe whatever they are told. That Is not the kind of wond I care to be in. Students need to be challenged and be exposed to material they might not agree with but they can learn from. Hanover has created an atmosphere of Intimidation not only at HHS. Since the teachers can not speak out It Is nice to have students determined enough to fight for their education.

67i BARRY ALLEN 31 2 [CSYtJ 12/0012015 AT 9:31 AM (J LIKES DISUKES

When officials In power abuse it to the detriment of the administrators, teachers and students for their own personal Interests that Is not good leadership. If you are a parent and you haven't been hearing these rumblings about intimating teachers and anyone that opposes the top folks in Hanover then you need to ask yourself where have you been,? Conservative does not mean guiding

18 5 t:!:'). DOUG ~~, 1210912015 AT 9:59 AM

p:.::J;JJ. LIKES DISLIKES

Why Is the county supervisor all up in Hanover High School's business? Hanover High Schoollsn1 even in the district he was elected to represent. Who is the school board member representing Henry District and what is she doing? Can Hanover afford to lose good teachers to other districts or does It not matter as long as all the teachers that are left are on board with a Tea Party curriculum?

One reader of the Style Weekly article even called for Davis to be fired:

42 4 $I) ;~~~~~:-:~~~V1~ Gl:SlJ LIKES DISLIKES

@Sean Davis

Quit reading the comments on a Style Weekly article and DO YOUR JOB. listen to your students, teachars, community members. They're right in front of you, not on a comment board.

11. After December 8, 2015, Galuszka and LME added their own defamatory

remarks and information to the statements published in the Style Weekly article. The

additional false statements evidence LME and Galuszka's purposeful effort to injure Mr.

Davis' reputation at any cost.

7

12. On December 10, 2015, for instance, Galuszka published further false

statements about Mr. Davis is a Washington Post article entitled "In Hanover County,

Va., a battle over educational freedom". The aliicle falsely states:

Davis is apparently behind a campaign to restrict the reading of novels such as "The Color Purple," the

sbowing of pictures of Micbelangelo's nude "David" and the sbowing of movies sucb as "In COld Blood"

aud "Capote."

Teacbers who have run afoul of Davis' diktat have faced suspension. A number of teachers have since left

Hanover to teach into other school systems in the Richmond area, students and teachers say.

Davis emailed me that the charges are false and the work of "Political Action Committees" that bave no

place in schools.

13. On December 11, 2015, LME published a second Style Weekly article

authored by Galuszka entitled "Do Appointed School Boards Allow Political Interference

in Class?" The article made additional false and defamatory charges against Mr. Davis,

including the following:

When controversy spilled out in Hanover County about a county supervisor's alleged attempts to censor what instruction students receive at Hanover High School, a question cropped up.

Online commenters discussing a recent Style Weekly story about alleged censorship in the county schools forced by Henry District Supervisor Sean Davis, a conservative Republican, seem to believe that the Board of Supervisors has too much influence over the School, Board and administration.

14. The impact of the publication and republication of Defendants' false

factual statements upon Mr. Davis has been devastating, both emotionally and

professionally. In addition to severe anxiety, stress, panic, sleeplessness, knotted

muscles, and the sense of betrayal and deep disappointment, the defamation permanently

injured Mr. Davis in his business and profession. The defamatory statements are

8

permanent records available to the general public. Mr. Davis' reputation has been

permanently scarred.

COUNT I - DEFAMATION PER SE

15. Plaintiff restates paragraphs 1 through 14 of his Complaint and

incorporates them herein by reference.

16. The Defendants made and published numerous false factual statements,

which are detailed verbatim above, about or concerning Mr. Davis.

17. By publishing the article on the internet and soliciting cormnents, the

Defendants knew or should have known that their defamatory statements would be

republished over and over to Mr. Davis' detriment. Republication by identified and

anonymous posters was the natural and probable consequence of the Defendants' actions

and was actually and/or presumptively authorized by the Defendants.

18. Defendants' false statements constitute defamation per se. Defendants'

statements accuse and impute to Mr. Davis the commission of one or more crimes

involving moral turpitude, and for which Mr. Davis may be punished and imprisoned in a

state or federal institution. The Defendants' statements impute to Mr. Davis an unfitness

to perform the duties of an office or employment for profit, or the want of integrity in the

discharge of the duties of such office or employment. Defendants' statements also

prejudice Mr. Davis in his profession or trade.

19. Defendants' false statements have permanently and irreparably harmed

Mr. Davis and his reputation.

20. Defendants acted with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth

for the following reasons:

9

a. Defendants intentionally set out to promote the predetennined

agenda of a political action committee, choosing to quote two students and one parent

that suited the agenda.

b. Defendants' statements were knowingly false, with not a shred of

supporting evidence. Defendants conducted a limited and perfunctory investigation of

the facts, and accused Mr. Davis of criminal conduct while knowing that there had been

no charges 01' findings by anyone that Mr. Davis had any involvement in the suspension

or firing of any teacher or the banning of any book.

c. Defendants chose to manufacture and publish false statements and

use unnecessarily strong and violent language, disproportionate to the occasion.

d. Defendants did not act in good faith because, in the total absence

of evidence, they could not have had an honest belief in the truth of their statements

about Mr. Davis.

e. Defendants reiterated, repeated and continued to publish their false

defamatory statements out of a desire to hurt Mr. Davis and to permanently stigmatize

him.

21. Defendants lacked reasonable grounds for any belief in the truth of their

statements, and acted negligently in failing to determine the true facts.

22. As a direct result of Defendants' defamation, Mr. Davis suffered

substantial damage and incurred loss, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering,

emotional distress and trauma, insult, anguish, stress and anxiety, public ridicule,

humiliation, embarrassment, indignity, permanent damage and injury to his reputation,

10

Mr. Davis alleges the foregoing based upon personal knowledge, public

statements of others, and records in his possession. Mr. Davis believes that substantial

additional evidentiary support, which is in the exclusive possession of the Defendants and

their agents and other third-parties, will exist for the allegations and claims set forth

above after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.

Mr. Davis reserves his right to amend this Complaint upon discovery of additional

instances of Defendants' defamation and wrongdoing.

CONCLUSION AND REOUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Mr. Davis respectfully requests the Court to enter Judgment

against the Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:

A. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the Jury, but

not less than $1,000,000;

B. Punitive damages in the amount of $350,000 per Defendant, or the

maximum amount allowed by law;

C. Prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

D. Post judgment interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum until paid;

E. Costs;

F. Such other relief as is just and proper.

TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMANDED

DATED: March 31, 2016

12

lost wages and income, financial loss and penalties, costs, and other out-of-pocket

expenses in an amount to be determined by the Jury, but not less than $1,000,000.00.

23. LME is liable for Galuszka's unlawful conduct under the doctrine of


COUNT II - INSULTING WORDS

24. Plaintiff restates paragraphs 1 through 23 of his Complaint and

incorporates them herein by reference.

25. Defendants' insulting words, in the context and under the circumstances in

which they were written and used, tend to violence and breach of the peace. Like any

reasonable person, Mr. Davis was humiliated, disgusted, angered and provoked by the

insulting words.

26. Defendants' false and slanderous words are fighting words, which are

actionable under § 8.01-45 of the Virginia Code (1950), as amended.

27. As a direct result of Defendants' insulting words, Mr. Davis suffered

damage' and incurred loss, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, emotional

distress and trauma, insult, anguish, stress and anxiety, public ridicule, humiliation,

embarrassment, indignity, permanent damage and injury to reputation, lost wages and

income, financial loss, costs, and other out-of-pocket expenses in an amount to be

determined by the Jury, but not less than $1,000,000.00.

28. LME is liable for Galuszka's unlawful conduct under the doctrine of


11

· .

SEAN M. DAVIS

BY:.--1:.~~· ~.~~~~~~~~ ~ Steven S. Biss (VSB # 32972) 300 West Main Street, Suite 102 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Telephone: (804) 501-8272 Facsimile: (202) 318-4098 Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Plaintiff

13

STEVEN S. BISS ATTORNEY AT LAW

300 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 102 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903

TELEPHONE: 804-501-8272

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

Frank D, Hargrove, Jr" Clerk Hanover Circuit Court P,Q,Box39 7507 Library Drive Hanover, VA 23069-0039

F Ale 202-31 8-4098 .. EMAIL: [email protected]

ssbiss@yahoQ,coll1 stevensbiss@a~t.blackben'Y net

March 31, 2016

RE: Davis v. Landmark Media Enterprises, LLC et al.

Dear Mr, Hargrove: CL/t tJtJ//t/2 -t1/)

MATTER No,

145-001

RECEIVED and/or FILED

APR 01 2016 .CLERK'S OFFICE


Enclosed for filing is Plaintiff's Complaint, together with my firm check in the sum of $361 to cover the filing fee ($349) and sheriff's fee for service of process ($12) and the civil cover sheet

I seek service on one (1) Defendant at this time, and include a copy of the Complaint for that purpose,

Please prepare process for service on Defendant, Landma.rk, as follows:

Serve: Landmark Media Enterprises, LLC c/o Guy R, Friddell, III, Registered Agent 150 Granby Street, 19th Floor Norfolk, Virginia 23510 ~\

, Once process is ready, please forward the papers to the Sheriff for immediate 't:..;~. servICe. . ~

Thank you for your assistance. Please call me if you ha.ve any questions.

Yours very truly,

~I> Steven S. Biss

Ene!. cc. Sean M. Davis

2

COVER SHEET FOR FILING CIVIL ACTIONS COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Case No ..... CL/~.aO'IL.'I,t.:M ....................... . (CLERK'S OFFICE USE ONLY)

............................................................................................ s.?~.?t;(.".r..r:r.~~?::~.r ............................................................................................. Circuit Court

.................................................. ~~.~~ .. rv,t:.?~.v.i~ ................................................... v.lln re: .................... lc~~.~~:~ .. rv,t~.~i.a..lCl~.t~:!':i~~.s.!.~~.C; .. ~~.~l ..................... . PLAINTIFF(S) DEFENDANT(S)

I, the undersigned I 1 plaintiff [ 1 defendant [xl attomey for [xl plaintiff [ 1 defendant hereby notifY the Clerk of Court that I am filing the following civil action. (Please indicate by checking box that most closely identifies the claim being asserted or relief sought.)

GENERAL CIVIL Subsequent Actions

[ 1 Claim Impleading Third Party Defendant [ 1 Monetary Damages [ 1 No Monetary Damages

[ 1 Counterclaim [ 1 Monetary Damages [ 1 N a Monetary Damages

[ 1 Cross Claim [ 1 Interpleader [ ] Reinstatement (other than divorce or

driving privileges) [ 1 Removal of Case to Federal Court

Business & Contract [ 1 Attachment [ 1 Confessed Judgment [ ] Contract Action [ ) Contract Specific Performance [ 1 Detinue [ 1 Garnishment

Property [ 1 Annexation [ 1 Condemnation [ 1 Ejectment [ 1 Encumber/Sell Real Estate [ ] Enforce Vendor's Lien [ 1 Escheatment [ 1 Establish Boundarics [ 1 LandiordlTenant

[ 1 Unlawful Detainer [ ] Mechanics Lien [ 1 Partition [ 1 QuietTitie [ ] Termination of Mineral Rights

Tort [ 1 Asbestos LItigation [ ] Compromise Settlement [xl Intentional Tort [ 1 Medical Malpractice [ 1 Motor Vehicle Tort [ 1 Product Liability [ 1 Wrongful Death [ lather General Tort Liability

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [ 1 Appcai/Judicial Revicw of Decision of

(select one)

. PROBATEIWILLS AND TRUSTS [ 1 Accounting

[ 1 ABC Board [ 1 Board of Zoning [ 1 Compensation Board [ ] DMV License Suspension [ ] Employee Grievance Decision [ ] Employment Commission [ 1 Local Government [ ] Marine Resources Commission [ 1 School Board [ ] Voter Registration [ lather Administrative Appcal

DOMESTICIFAMILY [ 1 Adoption

[ 1 Adoption - Forcign [ 1 Adult Protection [ 1 Annulment

[ ] Annulment - Counterclaim/Responsive Pleading

[ 1 Child Abuse and Ncglect - Unfoundcd Complaint

[ 1 Civil Contempt [ 1 Divorce (select one)

[ ] Complaint - Contestcd* [ ] Complaint - Uncontested* [ ] CounterclaimlResponsive Pleading [ ] Reinstatement-

CustodyNisitationiSupportJEquitabie Distribution

[ ] Separate Maintenance [ ] Separate Maintenance Counterclaim

WRITS RECEIVED andlor FILED [ 1 Certiorari

[ 1 Habeas Corpus [ 1 Mandamus APR 01 2016 [ 1 Prohibition [ 1 Quo Warranto

CLERK'S OFFICE HANOVER CIRCUIT COURT

[ 1 Aid and Guidance [ 1 Appointment (select one)

[ ] Guardian/Conservator [ 1 Standby Guardian/Conservator

[ 1 Trust (select one) [ 1 Impress/Declare [ 1 Reformation

[ 1 Will (select one) [ 1 Construe [ 1 Contested

MISCELLANEOUS [ 1 Appointment (sclcct one)

[ 1 Church Trustee [ ] Conservator of Peace [ 1 Marriage Celebrant

[ 1 Bond Forfeiture Appeal [ 1 Declaratory Judgment [ 1 Declare Death [ ] Driving Privileges (select one)

[ 1 Reinstatement pursuant to § 46.2-427 [ ] Restoration - Habitual Offender or 3rd

Offense [ 1 Expungement [ ] Firearms Rights - Restoration [ ] Forfeiture of U.S. Currency [ 1 Frecdom ofInformation [ 1 Injunction [ linterdiction [ 1 Interrogatory [ 1 Judgment Lien-Bill to Enforce [ ] Law EnforcementlPublic Official Petition [ 1 Name Change [ ] Referendum Elections [ 1 Sever Order [ 1 Taxes (select one)

[ ] Correct Erroneous StatelLocal [ 1 Delinquent

[ 1 Vehicle Confiscation [ 1 Voting Rights-Restoration [ 1 Other (please specifY) .................................. .

[xl Damages in the amount of $ .. 1.!~.5.~.'.~~g:.o.? ...................................... are claimed.

~p~~~~~~~ .................... II:f.a.:.~.~.~},.?O'!§ .................. . DATE [ J PLAINTIFF [ J DEFENDANT H ATTO NE 'OR [, J PLAINTIFF

Steven S. Biss PRINT NAME

....... ................. ~O'? .. ':Y~~t .. lI:f~i.l1.~:r~.~t, .. ~.~i.t~..1.~.~ ............................ .. ADDRESsrrELEPHONE NUMBER OF SIGNA TOR

......................... s:~.~r.I9.tt..~.sv.i.ll~!..Y..I.':.?~.9.~.~ .. (~'O'~.:~9.1.:.S.2..7.~.L .................... . FORM CC·1416 (MASTER) PAGE ONE 10/12

[ J DEFENDANT

*"Contested" divorce means any of the following matters are in dispute: grounds of divorce, spousal support and maintenance, child custody and/or visitation, child support, property distributior or debt allocation. An "Uncontested" divorce is filed on no fault grounds and none of the above issues are in dispute.

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF HANOVER

SEAN M. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LANDMARK MEDIA ENTER., LLC, d/b/a STYLE WEEKLY, and PETER GALUSZKA,

Defendants.

ANSWER

Case No. CL16001142-00


MAY 032016 C~ERK'S OFFICE


For and as 'their Answer to the Complaint filed against them in tbis action, Landmark

Media Enterprises, LLC ("Landmark") and Peter Galuszka ("Mr. Galuszka") state and allege the

following:

Parties

1. Landmark is without knowledge as to the facts set forth in Paragraph 1 ofthe

Complaint. Mr. Galuszka admits that Mr. Davis is a citizen of Virginia, is a Republican member

of the Board of Supervisors of Hanover County, was initially elected as the Henry District

Supervisor on November 19; 2011, served as the Board's Chairman in 2014, Vice Chair in 2013,

and in 2015 was re-elected to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Galuszka does not have personal

knowledge of the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph I of the Complaint

and, therefore, denies the allegations.

2. Landmark and Mr, Galuszka admit that Landmark is a Virginia limited liability

company, but deny that Landmark owns, publishes and distributes a newspaper called Style

Weekly. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka admit that Style Weekly is an altemative weekly newspaper

published in Richmond, Virginia and on the Intemet at www.styleweekly.com. Style Weekly is

published by Style, LLC.

1·1407143,1

· (.

3. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka deny that Mr. Galuszka is employed by Landmark.

Landmark and Mr. Galuszka admit that he is a writer for Style Weekly and that he wrote the

article referenced in the Complaint. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka deny that the article was false

and defamatory.

4. Landmark denies the allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Coinplaint. Mr. Galuszka

admits that he was acting within the scope of his employment when he wrote the articles alleged

to be false and defamatory, but denies that he was employed by Landmark or that Landmark is

liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Jurisdiction and Venue

5. The allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint are conclusions oflaw to which

no response is required.

6. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka deny the allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint

insofar as they accuse them of publishing multiple defamatory statements. Landmark denies that

it published anything referred to in the Complaint in the County of Hanover. The allegation

concerning venue is an allegation of law to which no response is required.

Statement of the Facts

7. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka deny the allegations of Paragraph 7 of the

Complaint. Mr. GaJuszka admits that he authored an article published in Style Weekly on

December 8, 2016.


Complaint, but admit that the statements set forth were contained in an article authored by Mr.

Galuszka and published in Style Weekly, but further state that the article must be read in its

entirety.

2 1-1407143.1

· /.


Complaint.


Complaint except to admit that the'quoted comments were made by other parties. Landmark and

Mr. Galuszka state that such comments are not the responsibility of either of them and

affirmatively rely upon Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in regard to the

publication of such comments.


Complaint.


Complaint. Mr. Galuszka admits that he is the author the Washington Post blog post referred to

in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, but states that the post must be read in its entirety.

13. Landmark denies the allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint. Mr. Galuszka

admits that he authored the article in Style Weekly which is referenced in the post, but states that

the article speaks for itself. Except as expressly admitted, the allegations of Paragraph 13 of the

Complaint are denied.


Complaint.

COUNT I - DEFAMATION PER SE

15. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka incorporate their responses set forth in Paragraphs 1

through 14 above as if fully rewritten here.


Complaint.

3 1-1407143.1

, "


Complaint.


Complaint.


Complaint.


Complaint.


Complaint.


Complaint.


Complaint.

COUNT II - INSULTING WORDS

24. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka incorporate their responses set forth in Paragraphs 1

through 23 above as if fully rewritten here.


Complaint.

26. ' Landmark and Mr. Galuszka deny the allegations of Paragraph 26 of the

Complaint.

27. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka deny the allegations of Paragraph 27 ofthe

Complaint.

4 [·1407143.1


Complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

I. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka assert that the article which is the subject of matter

of this action was prepared in good faith without actual malice and for the purpose of informing

the public of matters which the public had the right to be informed and concerned a matter of

general public interest. The article was published in the exercise of every citizen's

constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press as gnaranteed by

the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 12

ofthe Constitution of Virginia.

2. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka assert that the article was published without either

constitutional actual malice or common law malice.

3. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka assert that the punitive damages claimed are

unconstitutional under the Constitution ofthe United States and the Constitution and laws of the

Commonwealth of Virginia.

4. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka assert that portions of the article are privileged as

true accounts of public proceedings or fair comment regarding public proceedings.

5. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka assert that Plaintiff's claims of innuendo and

insinuation are not supported by an objective reading ofthe article and are not actionable.

6. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka assert that the Plaintiff is a public official who must

prove constitutional actual malice to prevail in this action.

7. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka assert that some or all of the statements aIleged to be

false and defamatory are not capable of being proven true or false andlor constitute opinion and,

5 '·1407143.1

• >

hence, are nonactionable under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution,

the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and governing common law.

8. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka assert that some ofthe statements are not "of and

concerning" Plaintiff.

9. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka assert that some or all of the statements identified

above are not reasonably susceptible to a defamatOlY meaning under the law of Virginia.

10. Landmark and Mr. Galuszka assert that the articles which are the subject of this

suit were prepared with reasonable care.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Landmark Media Enterprises, LLC and Peter

Galuszka move that this action be dismissed as to each of them, that they recover their costs in

their behalf expended, and for such other and further relief as may be appropriate.

Conrad M. Shumadine (VSB No. 4325) Brett A. Spain (VSB No. 44567) WILLCOX & SAVAGE, P.C. 440 Monticello Avenue, Suite 2200 Norfolk, Virginia 23510 Telephone: (757) 628-5500 Facsimile: (757) 628-5566 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Defendants

1-1407143.1

LANDMARK MEDIA ENTERPRISES, LLC and PETER GALUSZKA

Of Counsel

6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.

I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of May, 2016, a true and correct copy of the

foregoing Answer was served via electronic transmission and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on:

1·1407143.1

Steven S. Biss (VSB #32972) 300 West Main Street, Suite 102 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Telephone: (804) 501-8272 Facsimile: (202) 318-4098 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff

Conrad M. Shumadine

7

.,

r0-~ WIL SAVAGE -:. . _ .. " - -

Conrad M. Shumadine (757) 628-5525 [email protected]

Via FedEx

Frank D. Hargrove, Jr., Clerk Hanover County Circuit Court 7507 Library Drive Hanover, Virginia 23069

May 2,2016

85860.005


MAY 03 2016 CLERK'S OFFICE


Re: Sean M. Davis v. Landmark Media Enterprises, LLC and Peter Galuszka Case No. CL16001142-00

Dear Mr. Hargrove:

Enclosed is an Answer for filing on behalf of Defendants in the above-captioned matter.

Thank you for your assistance with this filing.

Sincerely yours, •

G? Cj/LL.~ C-->

CMS:sm Enclosure

Conrad M. Shumadine

cc: Steven S. Biss, Esq. (Via Email and U.S. Mail)

Reply to Norfolk Office

440 MONTIOELLO AVENUE BUITE 2200 NORFOLK, VA 28510 757.626.5500 FAOSIMILE 757.62B.5566

..

222 CENTRAl. PARK AVENUE SUITE 1500 VIRGINIA ElEACH, VIRI3INIA 2:3462 757.628.5600 FAOSIMILE 757.628.56551

WWW.WILLCOXANDSAVAGE,ODM

1-1407831.1

Davis Complaint and Answer - virginiadefamationlawyer.com

Documents

Transcript of Davis Complaint and Answer - virginiadefamationlawyer.com